While Frank Gaffney wrote his first column without any reference to the Law of the Sea in nearly half a year, he probably helped pen the lead editorial on the page opposite his column in the Washington Times.

The Times makes two main claims against the treaty, neither of which has any legs. First, the Times says we should reject the Law of the Sea because Reagan did and argues that Reagan would still reject it. As I've written here, there's little doubt that President Reagan would enthusiastically embrace the Law of the Sea in its current form. After all -- he said so himself.

Then, the Times says the treaty would interfere with John Bolton's Proliferation Security Initiative. None other than John Bolton has put that myth to rest.

Regarding Iraq, the Washington Times has argued strenuously that we should blindly follow the advice of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, despite serious disagreements among civilian and military leaders. Those same leaders unanimously favor U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea. The Times would do well to heed its own words.

-- Scott Paul